Monday, November 1, 2010

Subjective debates undermine issues Objectivity needed!!


Another auspicious day in India! The States Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala came into being at different times as part of the Indian union today. All three of them are in the southern part of India. Let us all join in wishing these states and the people a great future.

Human is the most evolved specie of all the animals that inhabit the planet Earth. We have a slew of entities with geographical boundaries termed as countries, each with its own uniqueness, predominantly practicing Democracy as the form of governance; some are theocracies, while others are totalitarian. Each has it pros and cons, endless debate goes as to which is better. Without any doubt maximum cacophony emanates from countries which practice Democracy, as it is everybodys birth right to start howling moment they do not agree with something that the state does and show inclination of doing. Be it denying permission to erect Minarets in Switzerland, or a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York USA, or expressing the desire to burn the Holy Quran by Pastor Terry Jones on 11th of September 2010 or be it the Ban on wear Burquas in public in France.  The outcry is in unison from almost all corners of the world and Democratic Rights are cited by one and all.
Lets now focus on the raging debate in India. Yes it has to be on what was stated by Ms. Arundhati Roy on the status of state of Jammu & Kashmir in the Union of India. We have since then had a series of Television debates so called liberal, Human Rights activists and Intellectuals placing their considered opinions about this issue. Like wise many articles and news report along with blogs have been written on this issue. Arguments for and against have been vehemently presented to the readers, with a bias of the author of the piece very evident as we read them. Let see what was said.  “Kashmir needs freedom from India” , “I said what millions say in Kashmir” “Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds. Pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice while communal killers, mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on the poorest of the poor, roam free.”    ,“Only voiced what Kashmiris feel” 

After this started the round of customary round of written rebuttal from other journalists, intellectuals, legal eagles and all those who felt aggrieved at what had been stated by Ms.Arundhati Roy.“Arundhati Roy is dangerously wrong on Kashmir” . Don’t pity us, Arundhati – not yet.   ,“Congress asks Arundhati Roy to withdraw Kashmir statement”, “No damage to India from Arundhati Roy's remarks”  and “Kashmir’s molehills”. 

Rest easy I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of what each of them have said or not said. I am going to touch upon a larger question and leave to the readers to decide for them selves what should take precedence. The orderly existence of a civil society is predicated by a set of rules or laws universally applicable across the board. We surrender before these laws and conduct our daily lives within the established acceptable norms. It maybe perfectly normal to walk stark naked within the confine of ones house, however the same act in public is treated as unacceptable and invites punishment under relevant law. Having sex is not prohibited, however if the same act is performed in public or against the will of the other party law views this as an infringement and punishes accordingly. There are no debates about the status of the accused nor is the society, media or intellectual empowered to hand out punishment this is done by the court of law duly established as per the terms set out in the constitution of a country.
Ones Freedom Fighter others Terrorist is an old debate.
The debate on the current issue should be objective in nature, unfortunately it has degenerated into a subjective debate. Why should there be talk of Freedom of Speech or Expression. The basic issue is has the purported statement been made by Ms.Arundhati Roy?….The answer to this is ‘Yes’.Is there a law which defines the limits or conditions for such speeches? Yes there is a law.  Does it in anyway transgress the established laws of the land?.... Answer I am not competent to judge this, neither is the society or the large number of commentator No is an emphatic response to that. Then who will pass a judgment on this?..Court of Law as empowered by the Constitution of the country. Who will produce the evidence and the alleged culprit before the court of law? This is the function of the executive. Let us remember when the ministers assumes office in a government, they are administered an Oath of Office. This is the text…
                                                   THIRD SCHEDULE
[Articles 75(4), 99, 124(6), 148(2), 164(3), 188 and 219]*
Forms of Oaths or Affirmations
Form of oath of office for a Minister for the Union:—
“I, A. B., do swear in the name of God
that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, 1[that I will
uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India,] that I will faithfully and
conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the Union and that I
will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and
the law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”
Form of oath of secrecy for a Minister for the Union:—
“I, A.B., do swear in the name of God that I will not directly or indirectly
communicate or reveal to any person or persons any matter which shall be
brought under my consideration or shall become known to me as a Minister
for the Union except as may be required for the due discharge of my duties
as such Minister.”

I have my eyes firmly fixed on the executive waiting for their response. Will any action on this be forthcoming!
As a child we are often taught the importance of time “Stitch in time saves nine.” The other thing that is ingrained into us that “Pen is Mightier than Sword” if this be the case then how can the purported crime of Ms. Arundhati Roy be ignored.

In conclusion is this tweet which was addressed to me earlier this evening. “Suratsuri@anilkohli54 as an Indian who did not write/indulge in any Small Things,I want freedom from Arundati Roy n all her booker contemporaries”

Latest update : Delhi High Court why shouldnt action be taken against A.Roy for antiindia speeches?Wheels R turning atlast